TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as "the Ld AO") and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld CIT(A)") are contrary to the principles of equity and natural justice, violate the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are against well settled principles of law, and are liable to be struck down. 2. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowance under Section 42(1)(b) of the Act 2.1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Ld AO in respect of disallowance under section 42(1 )(b) of the Act when there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the appellant. 2.2. The Ld CIT(A) and the Ld A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd claimed, were operational and had commenced commercial production and that the CIT(A) was unable to comprehend the reasons why drilling operations were undertaken when the blocks had commenced commercial production. 2.7. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied in respect of disallowance under Section 42(1 )(b) of the Act even after taking note of the order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal"), in the appellant's own case for AY 2007-08, which clarified the requirement of drilling expenditure even after commencement of commercial production. 2.8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied in respect of disallowance under Section 42( 1 )(b) of the Act by stating that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. The last limb of the addition on which penalty has been levied is with regard to a disallowance of deduction claimed for exploration expenditure incurred for the business of prospecting for or extraction/production of oil under section 42(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,57,80,104/-. In the return of income assessee had claimed deduction for producing property for prospecting business under section 42(1) of the Act. 6.1 At the time of hearing, Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in the quantum proceedings, the issue came up before the Tribunal and vide its order dated 7/2/2014(supra), the matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for a decision afresh. 6.2 Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sharing Contracts with the Government of India. The claim of the assessee has been that the impugned expenditure falls within the scope of section 42(1) of the Act, whereas as per Revenue the impugned expenditure is merely development expenditure, which is outside the scope of deduction prescribed in section 42(1) of the Act. 7.4 Be that as it may, the aforesaid discussion would reveal that that the difference between the assessee and the Revenue is with regard to the scope of the expenditure envisaged in section 42(1) of the Act. The relevant discussion in the assessment order or even in the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer, does not reflect that the claim of the assessee was fanciful or was patently erroneous so as to suggest ....